The Southern Schools: Sacramento St, Cal St. Bakersfield, Weber St. Southern Utah, Utah Valley, Northern Arizona, New Mexico St., Denver, and Northern Colorado can play under the WAC banner.

The two conferences can work together for scheduling and share revenue. By having 2 conferences there will be greater NCAA revenue than with only 1 as well as greater postseason opportunities due to the 2nd auto bid.

Sports like baseball and softball can be played under 1 Banner of the member's choosing since there are not enough participants for 2 separate conferences still allowing for a geographic friendly, stable conference for these sports.

All schools would be allowed to invest in their football programs more as their non revenue sports are in a geographically friendly, stable conference with minimal travel and maximum postseason opportunity.

The Southern Schools: Sacramento St, Cal St. Bakersfield, Weber St. Southern Utah, Utah Valley, Northern Arizona, New Mexico St., Denver, and Northern Colorado can play under the WAC banner.

The two conferences can work together for scheduling and share revenue. By having 2 conferences there will be greater NCAA revenue than with only 1 as well as greater postseason opportunities due to the 2nd auto bid.

Sports like baseball and softball can be played under 1 Banner of the member's choosing since there are not enough participants for 2 separate conferences still allowing for a geographic friendly, stable conference for these sports.

All schools would be allowed to invest in their football programs more as their non revenue sports are in a geographically friendly, stable conference with minimal travel and maximum postseason opportunity.

I hope they can work it out.

Same here. I think it's a great idea and a coup if the Big Sky can pull it off, essentially getting 2 NCAA bids. Some schools will need to give in a bit. Like NAU for example...what if they are in a different conference than nearby SUU. But in the end, if you're in an 8 or 9 school conference, you have a better shot at a bid versus being in an 11 school conference.

The Southern Schools: Sacramento St, Cal St. Bakersfield, Weber St. Southern Utah, Utah Valley, Northern Arizona, New Mexico St., Denver, and Northern Colorado can play under the WAC banner.

The two conferences can work together for scheduling and share revenue. By having 2 conferences there will be greater NCAA revenue than with only 1 as well as greater postseason opportunities due to the 2nd auto bid.

Sports like baseball and softball can be played under 1 Banner of the member's choosing since there are not enough participants for 2 separate conferences still allowing for a geographic friendly, stable conference for these sports.

All schools would be allowed to invest in their football programs more as their non revenue sports are in a geographically friendly, stable conference with minimal travel and maximum postseason opportunity.

I hope they can work it out.

Exactly my thoughts. From what I can tell baseball, softball, men's golf, women's swimming and women's gym would compete under one banner. Worth mentioning, if a couple more schools in the north added golf or swimming they could split into 2 down the road.

I really like how the Big Sky is taking charge of this mess and trying to accommodate everyone.This is so refreshing after seeing all this dog-eat-dog behavior at the FBS level.I think for Boise State, this actually works out BETTER than the Big West.

2 other schools are reportedly involved in the talks, and it seems to make sense they would be UVU and CSU-B of Great West.Not sure they couldn't be BYU and USAFA, if they entertain visions of FB only membershp in Big East.

Quinn's map shows what outliers Sacramento State and North Dakota are. (CSU-B would be an outlier too).It might make sense to let them move their Oly sports to Big West and Summit, respectively to cut down on everyone's travel.

If MWC loses USAFA, they'd be at only 8/9, and might want to bring in UTEP (full member) and offer Idaho / NMSU FB only membership.that would get them to 9/12....

I really like how the Big Sky is taking charge of this mess and trying to accommodate everyone.This is so refreshing after seeing all this dog-eat-dog behavior at the FBS level.I think for Boise State, this actually works out BETTER than the Big West.

2 other schools are reportedly involved in the talks, and it seems to make sense they would be UVU and CSU-B of Great West.Not sure they couldn't be BYU and USAFA, if they entertain visions of FB only membershp in Big East.

Quinn's map shows what outliers Sacramento State and North Dakota are. (CSU-B would be an outlier too).It might make sense to let them move their Oly sports to Big West and Summit, respectively to cut down on everyone's travel.

If MWC loses USAFA, they'd be at only 8/9, and might want to bring in UTEP (full member) and offer Idaho / NMSU FB only membership.that would get them to 9/12....

Right on about Sac St. and UND. Not sure they'd want them to leave though since they benefit from the security of numbers, in the event that any Big Sky/WAC schools left in the future. I do think UVU is a good get too.

There is some precedent for this Big Sky - WAC thing. There are 2 conferences in D-3 (in PA / mid-Atlantic aea) that are run under common management.MASCAC "Freedom" and "Commonwealth" conferences (10 schools and 8 schools, respcetively).I don't know all the details.

I think the WAC name would go away.

Big Sky would be banner over everythiing, especially the sports that don't have the numbers to support a split.For BB, they could have the Big Sky "A" and the Big Sky "B", and tell the NCAA that the former WAC's autobid is being moved to the Big Sky "B".Initially they may need to keep the WAC teams together in Big Sky "B", to meet that 5 schools / 5 years whatever criteria.But perhaps they could apply to NCAA for a waiver, that would let them align the schools geographically for BB.Why wouldn't the NCAA approve that ? Who would object ?

UTPA, Chicago State, and NJIT are likely cast adrift. However, they just aren't western schools, and they ned to go find an appropriate conf. home.

(Yesterday 11:27 PM)CPslograd Wrote:(Yesterday 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote: (Yesterday 08:31 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote: So what's in it for the Big Sky and the schools that are forced to move to the WAC? If they are 2 conf. the WAC would get the WAC money from the NCAA.

What's in it for them is it keeps a door open to FBS. If the WAC stays alive, FCS teams that want to move to FBS can join the WAC and satisfy the requirement of having an FBS conference to join when they reclassify to FBS. If the WAC dies, that door closes.

Fullerton doesn't want Big Sky schools to have an easy pathway to FBS.Like I said why would the BIG SKY WANT that? Oh goody let's save the WAC so one day Montana, Montana St., N.Dakota, Sac St., Portland St. can leave us for the greener fbs pastures of the WAC, making the Big Sky the left over sh*t conf. Or you can invite Idaho, split into div. save on travel and keep all of the Sky schools. Plus there's a real good chance no one in fbs will ever want Idaho and they'll rejoin the Sky for fb too and only have to worry that 1 day the MWC might want Montana.

really only Montana, Montana St., Sac St., Portland St., and maybe N.Dakota have fbs aspirations that could become possible. Even EWU (who won the title in 2010) can't come close to affording it. Sac St. can't either but at least they've considered it.

Maybe the Sky knows that WAC fbs will never happen, that would be the only reason for them to want that. Otherwise it makes no sense for the schools staying to say okay, knowing they could lose their top schools in a few years. If they see it as spot to let Sac St. and PSU park their oly sports, knowing that FBS won't ever come back to the WAC, then I guess I could see it for PSU and Sac St.

If it's such a great idea wouldn't the MWC and CUSA have shared schools, they were weighing all their options

(Yesterday 11:27 PM)CPslograd Wrote:(Yesterday 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote: (Yesterday 08:31 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote: So what's in it for the Big Sky and the schools that are forced to move to the WAC? If they are 2 conf. the WAC would get the WAC money from the NCAA.

What's in it for them is it keeps a door open to FBS. If the WAC stays alive, FCS teams that want to move to FBS can join the WAC and satisfy the requirement of having an FBS conference to join when they reclassify to FBS. If the WAC dies, that door closes.

Fullerton doesn't want Big Sky schools to have an easy pathway to FBS.Like I said why would the BIG SKY WANT that? Oh goody let's save the WAC so one day Montana, Montana St., N.Dakota, Sac St., Portland St. can leave us for the greener fbs pastures of the WAC, making the Big Sky the left over sh*t conf. Or you can invite Idaho, split into div. save on travel and keep all of the Sky schools. Plus there's a real good chance no one in fbs will ever want Idaho and they'll rejoin the Sky for fb too and only have to worry that 1 day the MWC might want Montana.

really only Montana, Montana St., Sac St., Portland St., and maybe N.Dakota have fbs aspirations that could become possible. Even EWU (who won the title in 2010) can't come close to affording it. Sac St. can't either but at least they've considered it.

Maybe the Sky knows that WAC fbs will never happen, that would be the only reason for them to want that. Otherwise it makes no sense for the schools staying to say okay, knowing they could lose their top schools in a few years. If they see it as spot to let Sac St. and PSU park their oly sports, knowing that FBS won't ever come back to the WAC, then I guess I could see it for PSU and Sac St.

If it's such a great idea wouldn't the MWC and CUSA have shared schools, they were weighing all their options

The MWC and CUSA did weigh their options and they determined that 2 separate conferences working together are better than 1 giant conference.

That is what the Big Sky and WAC are HOPEFULLY looking to do. If the WAC adopts some Big Sky members and drops to an FCS league that works directly with the Big Sky and shares revenue with the Big Sky, than that is a HUGE win for all the Big Sky Schools out west b/c now they have two conferences, two slices of the pie, two autobids, for 18 schools instead of just 1.

WAC FBS football is beginning their 2 year waiver. It does not look possible for the FBS threat from the WAC to hang over the Big Sky any longer. So why not everyone work together, save travel costs, and make 2 financially viable geograpically friendly conferences. The only other option is to have a sprawling 13, 14 team conference at the FCS level fighting for 1 slice of the financial pie and 1 autobid per sport.

(Yesterday 11:27 PM)CPslograd Wrote:(Yesterday 08:51 PM)Wedge Wrote: (Yesterday 08:31 PM)Fresno St. Alum Wrote: So what's in it for the Big Sky and the schools that are forced to move to the WAC? If they are 2 conf. the WAC would get the WAC money from the NCAA.

What's in it for them is it keeps a door open to FBS. If the WAC stays alive, FCS teams that want to move to FBS can join the WAC and satisfy the requirement of having an FBS conference to join when they reclassify to FBS. If the WAC dies, that door closes.

Fullerton doesn't want Big Sky schools to have an easy pathway to FBS.Like I said why would the BIG SKY WANT that? Oh goody let's save the WAC so one day Montana, Montana St., N.Dakota, Sac St., Portland St. can leave us for the greener fbs pastures of the WAC, making the Big Sky the left over sh*t conf. Or you can invite Idaho, split into div. save on travel and keep all of the Sky schools. Plus there's a real good chance no one in fbs will ever want Idaho and they'll rejoin the Sky for fb too and only have to worry that 1 day the MWC might want Montana.

really only Montana, Montana St., Sac St., Portland St., and maybe N.Dakota have fbs aspirations that could become possible. Even EWU (who won the title in 2010) can't come close to affording it. Sac St. can't either but at least they've considered it.

Maybe the Sky knows that WAC fbs will never happen, that would be the only reason for them to want that. Otherwise it makes no sense for the schools staying to say okay, knowing they could lose their top schools in a few years. If they see it as spot to let Sac St. and PSU park their oly sports, knowing that FBS won't ever come back to the WAC, then I guess I could see it for PSU and Sac St.

If it's such a great idea wouldn't the MWC and CUSA have shared schools, they were weighing all their options

The MWC and CUSA did weigh their options and they determined that 2 separate conferences working together are better than 1 giant conference.

That is what the Big Sky and WAC are HOPEFULLY looking to do. If the WAC adopts some Big Sky members and drops to an FCS league that works directly with the Big Sky and shares revenue with the Big Sky, than that is a HUGE win for all the Big Sky Schools out west b/c now they have two conferences, two slices of the pie, two autobids, for 18 schools instead of just 1.

WAC FBS football is beginning their 2 year waiver. It does not look possible for the FBS threat from the WAC to hang over the Big Sky any longer. So why not everyone work together, save travel costs, and make 2 financially viable geograpically friendly conferences. The only other option is to have a sprawling 13, 14 team conference at the FCS level fighting for 1 slice of the financial pie and 1 autobid per sport.

2 is greater than 1

Not really working together or else UTEP and UTSA would be in the MWC. Only way we are together is we might get to play each other in a bowl and some non conf. games. That sounds no different than the Big 12 and SEC.

I don't know if it's true but I read on the csn board that if the WAC had fbs fb, that if in 5 or 10 years Idaho and NMSU wanted to restart it w/ 6 other full WAC member schools like (6 Sky schools, unlikely i know) they could.

Yes they can get 2 bids, so does CUSA and MWC because they are separate. So the WAC gets 1 and Sky gets 1. WAC gets money for theirs and the Sky for theirs. They'd have 2 commishs', have different conf. sports, so how does the Sky make money by giving away members? 2 less pieces of pie to share w/? Okay but what if Montana and Montana St. decide hey, the WAC is getting higher seeds and better RPI, more TV games, we want to move over to the WAC. I'm sure the WAC would want them. So 9/9 becomes 11/7.

It very possible that any WAC / Big Sky divisions could get very ugly for the following reasons:

Idaho State will fight tooth and nail to be associated with Idaho and Boise St, which neither will allow unless the state gets involvedE Wash will fight to be associated with Seattle, Idaho, and Montana, none of whom are particularly interestedN Colo will fight to be associated with Denver, while DU wants nothing to do with UNC."

NAU is a high research institution, something he doesn't seem to realize.

NAU doesn't want UVU or CSUB - we can already schedule them non-conference in Basketball, and currently do

What Boise, Denver, Seattle want is irrelevant

He just posted that the WAC and Sky will become 2 FCS conf w/ Montana, Montana St., UND, PSU, Sac St. and NDSU or Idaho in the WAC(yeah right I can't see the Big Sky saying, okay you can go) w/ PSU and Sac St. but then had UCD and CP as fb only in the Sky. Why wouldn't they want to be w/ the west coast schools?

The Middle Atlantic Conferences in Division III does something similar to that. I always thought it was a great way to maximize the amount of bids you could gain in the NCAA Tournament. They are the Middle Atlantic Conference in a sport such as football but are the Middle Atlantic Conference -Freedom Division and Middle Atlantic Conference-Commonwealth Division in a sport such as men's basketball with both divisions operating independent of one another and therefore obtaining an AQ for both. Their website is here:http://gomacsports.com/index.aspx

The only problem is Division III talked about prohibiting "Umbrella Conferences" in 2010. I never heard whatever came of that. It was also only Division III that was talking about it but I wonder if there that sentiment is shared in all of the NCAA.

If I remember correctly prohibition of "umbrella" conferences did pass but the Middle Atlantic Conference was grandfathered in.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum